Can your cellphone cause cancer? Scientists find definitive link in US and Italian study of rats.

For decades, there had been ideas loosely based on the theory that cell phone radiation or non-ionizing radiation causes cancer. New studies that underwent live-broadcast peer review sessions show that cell phone radiation could play a role in lab rats getting cancer. This study is now sparking debate as to the impact of cell phone radiation on humans.

A pair of studies conducted by the United States National Toxicology Program determined it had “clear evidence” that exposure to radiation can cause heart tumors in male rats. The study also concluded that it found “some evidence” of brain tumors in those male rats being traced back to radiation exposure.

This goes against previous understanding from the U.S. federal government that cell phones cannot cause cancer due to them emitting non-ionizing radiation. Conversely, ionizing radiation from things like CT scans can cause cancer at high enough doses. The understanding was that non-ionizing radiation wasn’t strong enough to break chemical bonds and damage DNA.

The studies also drew attention for the sheer scale of them. The cancers weren’t just found in a handful of mice. The organizations conducting the studies observed 3,000 miles and rats of both sexes for over two years. Thus far, it’s the largest investigation into RF radiation and its potential association with cancer ever conducted. And the United States isn’t the only government studying these effects. A team from the Ramazzini Institute in Italy looked into RF radiation and its effects on nearly 2,500 rats from birth to death.

Effects of Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields: 833 Studies

Government and industry-linked scientists often claim that the research on the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) is inconsistent, and that more research is needed before precautionary warnings are issued or regulatory guidelines are strengthened.

Although most of the research on cell phones has focused on radio frequency radiation (RFR), these wireless devices also produce extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF EMF). The International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization classified ELF EMF “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) a decade earlier than RFR.

Dr. Henry Lai, Professor Emeritus at the University of Washington and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, has compiled summaries of several areas of the research on the biologic and health effects of exposure to RFR and ELF EMF. His sets of abstracts which cover the period from 1990 to 2017 constitute a comprehensive collection of this research.

Dr. Lai finds that the preponderance of the research has found that exposure to RFR or ELF EMF produces oxidative stress or free radicals, and damages DNA. Moreover the preponderance of RFR studies that examined neurological outcomes has found significant effects.

The evidence for DNA damage has been found more consistently in animal and human (in vivo) studies than in studies of cell samples (in vitro).

Note: The comet assay is a sensitive genotoxicity test for the detection of DNA damage and repair. This standard technique is used for evaluation of DNA damage and repair, biomonitoring, and genotoxicity testing.

LE GRAND JURY – The Minister of National Education has ensured that mobile phones will be banned from schools as soon as the next school year.

Students will soon be without their cell phones in schools. Jean-Michel Blanquer, the Minister of Education, announced that the devices “will be banned at school and college from the start of 2018”. “We are working on this issue, it can take different forms, you may need it for teaching purposes, for emergency situations so cell phones must be confined”, he said. precise. Invited Grand Jury RTL – Le Figaro – LCI , he recalled that some colleges “already arrive to do it”.

According to Jean-Michel Blanquer, the question of screens is a message of “public health”. “It is good that children are not too much, if at all, in front of screens before the age of 7”.

For the first time ever, a judge in Italy has ruled that excessive cell phone use can result in brain cancer. Roberto Romeo, 57, worked for Telecom Italia, a telecommunications company, for 15 years and said constant use of his mobile phone for work-related purposes caused him to develop a tumor in his brain, Agence France-Presse reported.

Following the verdict, which was released to the public Thursday, an Italian court in Iverea awarded Romeo a state-funded pension of about $535 a month for life after a medical examiner determined Romeo’s brain cancer damaged 23 percent of his bodily function. The pension will be paid out to Romeo by national insurance company INAIL, which covers workplace accident claims. It was the first trial court verdict in the world ‘to recognize a link between cell phone use and the development of brain tumor.

During the trial, Romeo said he was forced to use his cell phone for about three to four hours every day for 15 years.

As Promised, below is one of N8 State’s recent studies showing DNA damage in human hair follicles cells, and the complete protection with significant repair to human DNA using the N8 State Software app enabled. This study was conducted under the authority of Dr. Henery Lai and Dr. N.P. Singh. At N8, we believe in the integrity of scientific research and we work hard to work with the best of the best scientist globally known in their field of testing to accomplish true verifiable proof, while having NO say or control what so ever on the study! This DNA study is a proud example of what our technology can do, and a proud opportunity to work with the best of the best scientists globally known for decades on their accomplishments in DNA and Electromagnetic frequency / Radio Frequency / non-ionizing Radiation research and biological influence. Unfortunately this DNA study was not able to get published due to very unfortunate life circumstances, being why we are posting it now as the manuscript has nobody able to submit it to a reputable scientific journal. We hope you enjoy the truth!!!

Protection of DNA Damage Induced by Cell Phone Radiation

In Human Hair Follicle Cells

Narendra P. Singh, Jungsoo Park, and Kate Vijarro,

Department of Bioengineering

Seattle, WA 98195, USA

Running title: Protection of cell phone radiation-induced DNA damage

Abstract:

The aim of this research was to develop a simple model to investigate the effects of cell phone use on DNA and to evaluate a technology that may protect against these effects. DNA single-strand breaks were evaluated using the comet assay in hair follicle cells from twenty male human subjects ranging in age from 20 to 30 years, both before and after a 30 min exposure to radiation emitted from a cell phone, either with or without a built-in protective technology enabled. All individuals exposed to cell phone radiation with the protective technology disabled showed significantly higher levels of hair follicle cell DNA single-strand breaks. However, individuals, who were exposed to the radiation with the protective technology enabled, showed no significant increase in strand breaks in their hair follicle cells. Radiation from cell phones increased levels of DNA damage in hair follicle cells, and the technology investigated attenuated this effect.

Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) is used in wireless communication, particularly in cell phone technology. When a cell phone is used, a majority of the energy emitted by its antenna is absorbed by the hand and head of the user, which is similar, albeit at a much lower level, to energy absorbed when food is cooked in a microwave oven. However, the effect is of a chronic nature, i.e., over years of daily cell phone use. Usage of cell phones is on the rise, as are concerns about the health effects of exposure to RFR emitted by the phones.

Previous research has shown that cell phone radiation may have detrimental effects on human health. Though some studies have been inconclusive or have shown no effects, the research as a whole has indicated that cell phone radiation can pose a significant health risk [1]. In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified cell phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) mainly due to the association between cell phone usage and increased risk of certain types of brain cancer. Recently, Motawi et al. [2] have shown significant neuronal damage in young and old rats after just 60 days of daily (two hours per day) exposure to cell phone radiation. A recent research in rats has shown that exposure to cell phone radiation had tumor promoting effects [3] in lung, liver, and lymphatic cells. Some research indicated cell phone radiation may have effects on future generations: a recent study linked high levels of cell phone usage, measured by duration and specific absorption rate (SAR) levels, to spontaneous abortions [4], and Kesari and Behari [5] found a significant effect of daily cell phone usage on biomarkers of male reproductive health.

Many reports have been published on the possible genetic effects of low-intensity RFR. DNA damage has been a significant area of investigation. Lai and Singh [6] first reported that DNA single-strand breaks, a common form of DNA damage, were higher in brain cells of rats after exposure to RFR. More recently, Çam and Seyhan [7] reported that short-term exposure to cell phone radiation caused an increase in DNA single-strand breaks in hair follicle cells of the user.

The goal of this research was to test a simple model to investigate the genetic effects of cell phone use and to test the possible modulation of these effects by software installed in the phone. This involved measurement of DNA single-strand breaks in hair follicle cells of human subjects after using cell phone. The ‘comet assay’ was used to assess DNA single strand breaks and alkali labile sites [8, 9]. This model was then used to test a cell phone protection-application being developed by N8 State/N8 Technology, LLC, called the N8 State Software App (https://n8state.com/). The app can be loaded into a cell phone. It is supposed to modulate the RFR emitted by the phone and lessen its biological effects. The present research is a first attempt to investigate the mechanism of action of the technology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cellular phone exposure and hair follicle cell collection

All chemicals were purchased from Sigma Aldrich Chemical Company (St. Louis, MO, USA) unless stated otherwise. Twenty male human subjects between 20 and 30 years of age participated in this study. The mean age was 25 years. All subjects were pre-screened with a questionnaire to ensure that they were healthy and had no indicators for increased DNA damage (such as drug, tobacco use, and recent ionizing radiation exposure). The study was reviewed and approved by the University of Washington’s Institution Review Board (Human Subjects Division). All subjects went through the process of informed consent and signed consent forms prior to participation in the study.

A Samsung Galaxy Note 4 cellular phone (Samsung, Seoul, South Korea) with a FCC-certified head average SAR of 0.10 W/kg operating on an AT&T GSM (Global System for Mobile) network at 850 MHz was used in the study. N8 State Software App (protection application) was installed into the phone. The phone was first connected (by calling) to another phone in the lab and then it was activated by a speaker attached to the mouth piece that played the same section of an audiobook.mp3 file [10]. Each subject was asked to hold the phone on one side of his head for 30 min as if he was carrying out a normal conversation. However, subjects were not asked to speak. The side of the head (left or right side) was determined by the subject’s normal habit of phone use. Immediately before the phone was switched on, each subject was asked to hold the phone and five to ten hairs were plucked, using a pair of hair forceps, from a location on the subject’s head close to the base of the phone antenna. The phone was then switched on, connected, and activated by feeding the audio signal to the mouth piece. Immediately after exposure, five to ten hairs were again plucked from the same location on the subject’s head. The protection application was disabled for the ‘exposure group’ (10 subjects) and enabled for the ‘protected group’ (10 subjects).

After the hairs were plucked, they were immediately immersed in a microfuge tube containing 750 µL of RPMI-1640 media with serum (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY, USA). In order to process the pre- and post-exposure hairs at the same time under the same electrophoresis conditions, the microfuge tube containing the pre-exposure hairs was put on ice for 30 min to prevent any DNA damage or repair in hair follicular cells. We have previously shown that 30 min storage on ice does not produce any significant change in DNA damage levels in cells [11]. Processing both samples from the same individual at the same time enhanced the reliability of the study. This allows samples to be handled identically during processing.

Using the forceps, hairs were transferred to a microfuge tube that contained 750 µL of collagenase (1 mg/mL) to dissociate the cells from hair follicles. They were then incubated for 15 min at 37°C with 5% CO2 in air and 100% humidity. During the incubation, the tube was vortexed at the 5 and 10 min time points for more efficient action of the collagenase.

Then, 750 µL of RPMI-1640 medium with 10% fetal bovine serum was added to the tubes to inactivate the collagenase. Hairs were then taken out using a pair of forceps. The microfuge tube was then centrifuged for 5 min at 5000x g (Sorvall Microspin, Model 245, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The supernatant was discarded and the cell pellet was re-suspended in 10 µL of medium. DNA damage in hair root cells was assayed by the alkaline comet assay.

DNA strand breaks assessment in hair follicular cells

Slide preparation:

Approximately 200 to 1000 hair follicular cells, mostly epithelial (>95%) in origin, can be obtained from a single hair follicle. A small number of fibroblast like cells and endothelial cells may be present. Only less than 0.1 % of the cells are melanocytes. Comet assay for assessment of DNA single-strand breaks was performed on this mixed population of cells.

Microgels were prepared on custom-made slides (MGE Slides, Mac & Sons Specialty Glass, Titusville, FL, USA). These slides provide a clear, non-frosted area in the center (1×3 cm) for low background visualization of DNA and a frosted area around for firm attachment of agarose. The first layer of microgel was made by putting 100 mL of 0.5%, 1:3 high-resolution agarose (Amresco, Solon, OH, USA) in the center of a slide and covering by a 24 x 50 mm cover glass. After cooling the slide for 1 min on ice, the cover glass was removed and the microgel was air dried at room temperature. On top of the dried layer, the first wet microgel layer was made using 250 mL of 0.7%, 1:3 high-resolution agarose. Ten microliters of the hair follicular cell suspension were mixed with 50 mL of 0.7%, 1:3 high-resolution agarose. Fifty microliters of this mixture was layered onto the pre-coated slide to make a second layer of microgel. After removing the cover glass, another layer of 250 mL of 0.7% agarose was layered on top of the cell layer, and then covered with a cover glass. This thicker third layer helped to prevent escape of DNA during lysis and electrophoresis.

After removing the cover glass, slides were incubated for 1 h in a lysing solution (pre-warmed to 37°C) having 1.25 M NaCl, 0.01% sodium lauryl sarcosine, 50 mM tetra-sodium EDTA, 10 mM Tris, at pH 10 and containing fresh reduced glutathione (1 mg/mL) and proteinase K (0.5mg/mL) (Amresco, Solon, OH, USA). They were then placed on a horizontal electrophoretic unit (Ellard Instruments, Monroe, WA, USA) modified to allow electrical input from a power supply to both ends of a positive and negative electrode. The unit was filled with a liter of a solution containing 300 mM sodium hydroxide, 1 mM EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid), and 0.2% DMSO. After 20 min of DNA unwinding and equilibrium of the microgel in the solution, electrophoresis (18 volts, 480 mA) and solution recirculation (100 ml/min) was started simultaneously for 20 min. Slides were then immersed in a neutralizing/DNA precipitating solution of CTAB (cetyl tri-methyl ammonium bromide) for 10 min and this step was repeated once more and the slides were immersed in a mixture of 75% ethanol and 25% Tris (tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane hydrochloride) for 10 min. This step was repeated twice more. Slides were then air-dried.

Slide Staining and analysis:

One hundred microliters of Yellow-Orange Yellow-Orange-1 (YOYO-1, Thermo-Fischer Scientific, Grand Island, NY, USA) stain were applied in two rows of 10 small, equally spaced droplets over the clear window area of a slide (to minimize variation in the intensity of stained DNA) and covered with a cover glass.

Images of the comets at 400× magnification were captured using a charge-coupled device (CCD) camera GW 525 EX (Genwac Inc., Orangeburg, New York, USA) attached to an epifluorescence microscope (DM LB Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany) with an excitation filter of 490 nm, a 500 nm dichroic filter, and an emission filter of 515 nm. One hundred hair follicle cells from each slide were analyzed using the VisComet image analysis software (Impuls Imaging GmbH, Türkheim, Germany). Comet extent, tail moment, and integrated intensity were analyzed and used as indices of DNA strand breaks. Comet extent is the distance from the leading edge to the trailing edge of the tail of the comet. The tail moment is the product of the tail length and the percent of nuclear DNA contained in the tail. Integrated intensity is a parameter used to measure changes in length, breadth, and intensity of nuclear DNA due to damage. These parameters have been used previously and are considered acceptable and reliable assessments of DNA damage. Only cells with intact nuclei were scored and highly damaged cells (comet extent greater than 625 pixels) were excluded by setting a strict maximum limit in the image analysis program. This ensured that apoptotic, necrotic, pre-necrotic, or pre-apoptotic cells were not included in the analysis.

Data analysis

Average of the scores from 100 cells from a subject was calculated for each parameter and used in data analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the GraphPad Prism 6.03 (La Jolla, CA, USA). Changes in DNA damage before and after cell phone use were compared using the paired t-test. A difference at P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

DNA damage levels before and after cell phone use in the groups with the protection application (“app”) disabled and enabled are presented in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Several parameters were used to quantify DNA damage: comet extent, mean tail moment, and tail integrated intensity. Means were calculated from 100 cells from each sample. Data showed that 30 min of cell phone radiation exposure significantly increased (by 20-50%) DNA single-strand breaks in hair follicle cells of subjects when the protection application was disabled. With the protection application enabled, the increase in DNA breaks was blocked, and actually, there was a slight significant decrease (10-40%) in breaks in hair follicle cells.

DISCUSSION

An acute exposure (30 min) to cell phone radiation from a simulated transmission increased DNA damage in human hair follicle cells. Use of the N8 State protection application during cell phone operation attenuated the DNA-damaging effect of the radiation. There was a significant increase in hair follicle cell DNA damage levels in all three parameters measured after cell phone usage in human subjects who used the phone with the protection application disabled, whereas a significant reduction in DNA damage was observed in the cells of subjects who used the phone with the protection application enabled.

Our results support the conclusion of Çam and Seyhan [7] that radiation from cell phones increased levels of DNA damage in human hair follicle cells. Skin temperature underneath a cell phone in use could increase by 2-3 oC which is mainly caused by heat conduction from the handset instead of from the radiofrequency energy emitted by the phone [12-14]. However, such an increase in temperature has been shown not to significantly affect DNA strand breaks in cells [15]. Thus, the increase in DNA strand break in hair follicle cells observed after cell phone use was probably not caused by heating and was likely a “nonthermal” effect of the radiation.

The present experimental procedure provides a relatively noninvasive and simple approach to evaluate the biological and possible health effects and mechanisms of action of cell phone radiation on humans. In addition to DNA damage, other cellular processes, such as metabolic and enzymatic changes and oxidative processes can be investigated in human subjects using this procedure.

One novel finding is a significant decrease in DNA strand breaks after exposure to 30 min of cell phone radiation in the group that had the protection application enabled compared with baseline levels of DNA damage. While there may be several reasons for this phenomenon, we speculate that the technology may modulate the radiation such that DNA may undergo only a minor insult. This minor insult may trigger DNA ligase I activity which, in turn, over-repairs damage even beyond the baseline level. DNA ligase I activation [16] is essential to repair of most of the more than one million DNA lesions per day per cell that happen normally in every individual due to environmental insults or failure of DNA repair enzymes [17]. Over-expression of DNA ligases in response to oxidative stress has been previously reported [18]. Further studies on the induction of ligases in RFR-induced DNA damage with and without the protective technology may provide information on the mechanisms.

This is a first attempt to study the effectiveness of the N8 State Software App in reversing the biological effects of cell phone radiation. Different makes of cell phone basically are emitting the same type of radiation. The amount of energy deposited in the head depends on the configuration of the phone antenna. Thus, the protective technology should be able to reverse the effect of different makes of cell phones. However, more research has to be carried out to better understand its effectiveness and mechanism of the technology, particularly, on different biological effects of cell phone radiation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Henry Lai for his invaluable advice and support.

DECLARATION OF INTEREST STATEMENT

This work was financially supported by N8 State Technology LLC, which had no oversight or right to review the research summarized here.

Figure 1. Differences in DNA damage levels as measured by (a) comet extent, (b) tail moment, and (c) tail integrated intensity (units of measurement are arbitrary) before and after cell phone use in the group with the protection application (“app”) disabled. Bars represent mean value and error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM) for n=10. ***p< 0.001;**** p<0.0001, compared to before exposure (paired t-test).

Figure 2. Differences in DNA damage levels as measured by (a) comet extent, (b) tail moment, and (c) tail integrated intensity (units of measurement are arbitrary) before and after cell phone use in the group with the protection application enabled. Bars represent mean value and error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM) for n=10. ** p<0.01; ***p< 0.001, compared to before exposure (paired t-test).

An article from the Baltimore Sun in Maryland, U.S.A. by Dr. Devra Davis

Devra Lee Davis, PhD MPH, Founder and President of Environmental Health Trust is a former senior advisor to the assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and Human Services, a member of a team awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 with the Al Gore and founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She is currently a visiting professor of medicine at the Hebrew University and president of Environmental Health Trust, a non-profit working to identify and avoid environmental health hazards.

Thank you, Gov. Larry Hogan, for appointing thoughtful, brave medical experts to Maryland’s Children’s Environmental Health and Protection Advisory Council (CEHPAC). Your next challenge is to get the Maryland school superintendents to heed the council’s well-founded advice: reduce and restrict children’s wireless radiation (WiFi). With distinguished experts in child health, neurodevelopment and pediatrics, the council draws on the well-established public health principle that stopping harm now is always better and cheaper than trying to fix damage later.

The council recommends wired rather than wireless classroom networks. Why? All wireless devices from laptops to tablets to cell phones work as two-way microwave radiating radios. While weak in power, this radiation is absorbed into our bodies, far more deeply into children who are smaller with thinner skulls. Two decades ago when the FCC set “safety” standards, authorities assumed that microwave radiation was harmless unless it produced heat. Research on children’s long-term effects was nonexistent. Today millions of children regularly use microwave radiating devices.

The first mayor of Kraków to be elected by popular ballot, law professor Jacek Majchrowski is tackling an environmental issue most governors avoid: the electromagnetic pollution in his city.

As Kraków, Poland’s second city, takes steps to protect its citizens from rising electromagnetic ‘smog’ from mobile phones, WiFi, Bluetooth, smart meters and other devices, Lynne Wycherley summaries 2016’s news highlights on the emerging bio-risks of rising exposure to non-ionisiong radiation. For how much longer can governments continue to ignore the growing evidence of harm?

The first mayor of Kraków to be elected by popular ballot, law professor Jacek Majchrowski is tackling an environmental issue most governors avoid: the electromagnetic pollution in his city. Following work on air pollution, and in response to growing demand, he is initiating forums for citizens to discuss the growing ‘smog’ of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs). In a world first he is also initiating the provision of meters to detect radio-frequency (RF) / extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs so people can collect objective data on their exposure.

In December, Majchrowski hosted an international conference on EMF pollution and citizens’ ‘right to information’ – an echo of the new Right to Know law in Berkeley, California (cell-phone sellers must supply safety information). Speakers included Sławomir Mazurek, a pro-reform Polish minister for the Environment. Majchrowski and his team are now re-zoning mobile-phone masts (cell towers) to reduce EMF exposure levels. With similar boldness, Argentina’s Lower National Congress proposed a new health law last year to regulate electromagnetic pollution. Supported by trade unions and NGOs, its radical draft measures included hard-wired networks in schools (also hospitals) – recalling the recent Green-led French law on “electromagnetic sobriety” (2015) and recommendations of the American Pediatrics Society and British Doctors’ Initiative.

A planetary paradox

Across the planet, 2016 had seen a paradoxical trend: Anthropogenic radiation from mobile and wireless trends continued to rise rapidly, alongside striking, under-reported findings on its possible bio-risks. Cell-phone use was still climbing. India alone reached over 1 billion verified subscriptions. But like Wilde’s picture of Dorian Gray, the small screens endlessly sold to us harboured a troubling reality. In May, researchers in the USA’s $25 million National Toxicology Programme released early warnings (later stated in detail). Cell-phone radiation had shown clear tumour-promoting effects in the hearts and brains of the rats under study.

In Britain, meanwhile, neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey published a key peer-reviewed paper (October 2016) that exposed shocking bias in the 2012 report by AGNIR, the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation – a report behind many governments’ take-no-action health policies, including the UK’s. And one which (as she demonstrates) blatantly excludes the peer-reviewed precautionary science.

Long buried by Germany’s government, a report offering a rare window on 878 Russian-language science papers (1960-1997) was finally translated, with updates, into English. Long-term studies on Soviet workers repeatedly charted chronic debilitation from weak EMF/RF Radiation – including pulsed microwaves that have been commercially ‘repackaged’ for today’s telecoms.

Though research protocols differed from those current today, raising potential questions, the author, medical Professor Karl Hecht, persuasively condemns his government – and the West as a whole – for its reliance on short-term studies.

Voices in the wind: unheard cautions

But escalating trends were in train. In July, the USA’s Federal Communications Commission approved unbridled commercial development of 5G, (July), despite serious question-marks about the new electromagnetic radiation being lined up for use, and the spiraling public exposure it would bring. A parallel trend for hidden transmitters saw more antennae disguised as birdboxes – and now as cables (January 2017) – the polar opposite of ‘right to know’. Whilst BT ran adverts for “the most powerful WiFi in the world” (UK), newly published papers continued to show DNA or organ damage to WiFi-exposed animals – raising questions about our habitual close exposure to routers / boosters. And while the ITU (International Telecoms Union) told the United Nations that 95% of the world’s population had mobile phone-mast coverage (July), with added 4G/LTE supplying 53%, a landmark study in Germany (September) revealed progressive harm to trees from the growing microwave radiation. Strongly irradiated trees, even two miles from antennae, died back, often to the point that they were felled.

Similarly troubling, a Greek study of pollinating insects found that many species decreased in step with phone-mast radiation (Lázaro et al). Underground-nesting species fared much better – an imbalance, the authors noted, that could have wide eco-impacts, or affect crops. Other 2016 peer-reviewed studies on phone-masts (cell towers) found genetic effects in nearby residents. (See also Gandhi 2015) plus lab-demonstrated amputee pain from the pulsing output.) A study on Antarctic krill (March) found that navigation was disrupted by an exceptionally weak radio-frequency field. Research showing insect cell-death from 6 minutes’ weak wireless exposure added to previous, similar findings (a, b, c) on Bluetooth etc. Both hint at a need to monitor our fast-rising, non-ionising radiation.

Under-age users – a ‘generation zapped’?

In Los Angeles, a young director began filming Generation Zapped, a courageous documentary on smart phone / wireless risks. Now in its late stages of production, it attracted wide support. Psychiatry professor Nicholas Kardaras, an expert in addiction, published his gripping book Glow Kids: how screen addiction is hijacking our kids (USA). Drawing on his clinical experience of over 1,000 teenagers, he adopted the term “digital heroin“ for interactive small screens. Sharing evidence for addiction-hallmark brain changes, however, he neglected plausible links with the wireless radiation itself (published RF risks to the prefrontal brain / opioid receptors).

A survey suggested US smartphone ownership began, on average, at age 10. Around the world, research showing children’s cell-phone radiation absorption was higher than adults’ – especially in the brain and bone marrow – continued to be overlooked. As did Russia’s 4-year study on multi-tested cognitive decline in 7 to 12 year-old’s using cell phones (2011), a contrast to milder, short-term findings elsewhere. Cell-phone risks to the blood-brain barrier which shields the brain from toxins – long highlighted by Professor Salford – found support in a new study. Professor Hardell (who called for pulsed RF to be upgraded to a Class 1 carcinogen in 2014) co-published on whether cell-phones might be a possible, hidden factor in the rise of thyroid cancer. And a review of 21 studies showing RF/cell-phone risks to male fertility (Houston 2016) concluded that free radical damage played a key role.

Lost in the tide: human rights

Outside Sweden, human rights continued to be denied to the rising numbers of adults and children testifying to EHS (severe ‘ElectroSensitive’ symptoms EHS). Reviewing up to date biological evidence, the European Academy for Environmental Medicine recommended low pulsed-microwave exposure limits (0.006 V/m) for those affected – far lower than from today’s wireless transmitters – including in schools, hospitals, public transport, and libraries. In July, the Spanish Court of Madrid pronounced a former telecoms engineer permanently disabled by EHS. Meanwhile an appeal judge (UK) awarded Employment and Support Allowance to a claimant, using surrogate terms due to the lack of legal recognition of EHS.

ICNIRP, the controversial regulatory body with newly documented conflicts of interest, now held 5 of the 6 seats in the WHO’s core group on EMFs (2016). As early as 2000, in a 189-page report, environmental professor Neil Cherry concluded ICNIRP neglected evidence “that would have had a chemical declared carcinogenic, neuropathogenic, cardiogenic and teratogenic for humans many years ago.” Though views would vary widely, by October 2016, 223 EMF scientists from 41 nations had signed the ongoing appeal to the WHO and UN for new safety standards. The UK’s microwave smart-meter roll out lumbered forward, despite spiraling costs, overseas court claims for health damage, and scientists’ call for worldwide, non-toxic alternatives. TV adverts obscured the meters’ microwave spikes (downplayed by manufacturers) and research on emerging health risks. (See note.) Installation began to take off in London’s tenanted accommodation. Mel Kelly, reprinted in The Ecologist, had already pointed out that many poorer households (tenants) would face involuntary metering and exposure.

Guarding the troubled gardens of our cells

The interaction of toxic chemicals and electromagnetic fields/ EMF-RF Radiation continued to be neglected. The discovery of EMF-sensitive magnetite in the brain from chemical air pollution (September) did not bode well. Nor did the earlier discovery that weak wireless exposure speeded up rodent body tumours triggered by a chemical carcinogen (Lerchl 2015).

Apple launched its wireless ‘earbuds’, which expose the brain to Bluetooth, just as Professor Pall (winner of eight international awards) published a new paper on wireless risks to our nervous systems and brains (September). This followed his ground-breaking work on a ‘master mechanism’ of harm: 26 peer-reviewed papers revealed over-stimulation of electrical gates (VGCCs) in our cell walls. This process boosts production of peroxynitrite (see note) – one of the most toxic compounds in the body – an emerging disease risk factor which triggers free radical damage to cells, tissues, mitochondria, and DNA. Noting 93 papers showing free radical damage from low-level wireless radiation, Yakymenko, et al 2016 concluded it has “a high pathogenic potential”. Associate Professor Havas (November 2016) drew a similar, insightful parallel with weakly ionizing radiation such as X-rays or low energy gamma rays of nuclear origin.

‘Creative steps for low-addiction living’

Overall, 2016’s precautionary findings, added to the accumulating data suggesting bio-risks, raise sensitive questions. Are we placing a covert stress, perhaps, on our exposed trees and pollinators? Could we be failing to safeguard children, teenagers, and those in frail health? What is the growing carbon cost of global, ever-on transmitters? And as time passes, might profit-driven trends for microwave ‘smart homes’, crammed with devices plus micro-transmitters (IoT), risk a subtle ‘sick building syndrome’, to everyone’s hidden cost? Our care for humanity, and the delicate legacy of DNA, invites us to reflect on such questions.

Can we take inspiration from Krakow, and the French Green law on EMFs? As 2017 unfolds, it seems clean ways forward deserve new thought, alongside creative steps for low-addiction living – a vital complement to going low carbon.

Lynne Wycherley is a nature poet with six published collections. Working in parallel with pioneering doctors, she has been investigating non-ionizing radiation for 5 years.

French Law Sobriété de l’exposition aux champs électromagnétiques. Main points: A census, and remediation, of worst mobile-phone mast hotspots (> 6V/m). Public map of masts. (Ofcom’s was removed, 2016, with no plans to replace). WiFi banned from nurseries. Wired internet in new primary-school facilities; existing routers switched off when not part of lessons. Public WiFi signage. Government report on EHS. Notice of all proposed / altered antennae to mayors/ residents. Deactivation instructions, plus SARs, with all transmitting products, plus cell-phone safety information supported by awareness campaigns.

The National Toxicology Programme‘s Ron Melnick, who led the study design team, confirmed “after extensive reviews, the consensus is that there was a carcinogenic effect.”

Exposé of AGNIR, open access: Rev Environ Health 2016; 31(4): 493-503. “Decisions about involuntary, continuous and widespread RF exposures in schools, hospitals, workplaces and public and private spaces in the UK and around the world have been made based upon inaccurate conclusions of the AGNIR report.” (AGNIR membership overlaps with ICNIRP: below)

Genetic effects in residents (masts) “genetic damage evident in the participants of this study needs to be addressed against future disease-risk” Gandhi et al (ditto for blurred vision etc. 2014)

Professor Kardaras: “I have found it easier to treat heroin and crystal meth addicts than lost-in-the-matrix video gamers or Facebook-dependent social media addicts.” Recent brain-imaging research shows effects in the frontal cortex matching those seen from cocaine.

Opioids”low-level RF activates both endogenous opioids and other substances in the brain that function in a similar manner to psychoactive drug actions. Such effects in laboratory animals mimic the effects of drugs on the part of the brain that is involved in addiction.” Bio-Initiative Report summary p.13

Thyroid cancer“The incidence…is increasing in many countries, especially the papillary type that is the most radiosensitive”, Hardell et al 2016. Thyroid cancer risks from ionising radiation in Japan (Fukushima), though dismissed by some specialists, were eloquently highlighted in The Ecologist.

ICNIRP International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection. (To date, has upheld industry-friendly safety standards that protect only against high-intensity exposures that ‘cook’ tissue). In 2004, noting ICNIRP was an “unelected” body, Caroline Lucas observed that “much of the science is being ignored, and the precautionary principle … seems not to apply.” Some scientists have appealed for broader representation on WHO’s EMF core group (19 Dec 2016).

Apple wireless earbuds use an ‘ever on’ Bluetooth microwave transceiver that connects to the user’s smartphone. Dr Joel Moskowitz: “We are playing with fire … You are putting a microwave-emitting device next to your brain.”

Peroxynitrite is regarded as an emerging key agent in the ‘diseases of civilisation’: cancer, neuro-degeneration, chronic inflammatory conditions, etc. [Prof Pall: strong mains-electric fields can contribute by a similar “VGCC” mechanism]. For RF/ELF oxidative damage, see Prof Georgiou .

Professor Havas: “As usage of microwave-emitting devices increases and is marketed to younger consumer without caution, we can expect a societal increase of certain types of cancers…as well as infertility and other health effects associated with free-radical damage”.

Want To Know What US Had To Say About EMF/RF Radiation Caused By Wireless Technology and Cell Phones? Here it is…

In the U.S., two major events occurred in 2016 regarding cell phone radiation. The release of the long-awaited results from the cell phone cancer study conducted by the National Toxicology Program and enactment of the first cell phone “right to know” law in Berkeley, California, and two major national newspapers, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, published articles about cell phone radiation warnings.

National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Cancer Study

The National Institute of Environmental Health Science released partial results of the $25 million National Toxicology Program study on the effects of exposure to cell phone radiation. The FDA called for this study in 1999. Cell phone radiation was found to cause two types of cancer in male rats and DNA damage in male and female mice and rats.

Berkeley’s Landmark Cell Phone “Right to Know” Law Takes Effect
The Berkeley cell phone “right to know” law which was adopted on a 9-0 unanimous vote of the City Council in May, 2015, took effect in March of 2016. Berkeley is the first city in the United States to pass a cell phone radiation ordinance since San Francisco disbanded its ordinance after a two-year court battle with the CTIA, the wireless industry’s lobbying organization.

The CTIA has sued Berkeley, and the case is currently being adjudicated in the Federal courts. Links to more than two hundred news stories from fourteen countries can be found on the EMR Safety website.

Last January, the New York Times published an exposé about CDC’s retraction of cell phone warnings from its website after protests from industry-funded scientists.

In May, the Wall Street Journalinvited two experts, Joel Moskowitz from the University of California, Berkeley and Larry Junck from the University of Michigan, to debate the need for cell phone radiation warning labels in its Journal Reports series.